Aftonbladet partisk eller opartisk? : En kvantitativ innehållsanalys av Aftonbladet Tv:s partiledardebatt 2022

Sammanfattning: In order to maintain a democratic society, journalism as a third state power plays a major role. Impartial journalism is therefore important to preserve a well-functioning democracy, which is what this study is about. The purpose of the thesis is to investigate whether Aftonbladet's party leader debate in 2022 was biased or unbiased based on the following research questions: - How biased has Aftonbladet been during their party leader debate in 2022? - In that case, which parties/blocks has Aftonbladet benefited through a biased party leader debate? The study aims to contribute to increased understanding of media's impartial role in a well-functioning democracy and to provide information about Aftonbladet's reliability and impartiality. In order to see whether the media presents a political debate biased or unbiased we have chosen to limit ourselves to Aftonbladets Party Leader Debate 2022. In the study, we carry out a quantitative content analysis where bias is an important and recurring concept that is central to the entire study. Based on Kent Asp's previous reports on the same subject (2003 and 2006) we have created our own analytical schemes, code instructions, codebook and codeschemes which we have used for our analysis of the debate. The study uses Agenda Setting Theory and Objectivity Theory to increase reliability. Our aim with this study is to analyze how Aftonbladet contributes to a democratic society and if they fulfill the ideal of objectivity. The results of our study shows how Aftonbladet during their party leader debate 2022 led a partisan debate in the favor of the left liberal and green parties. They did this by rhetorically asking more critical questions to the moderate, conservative and nationalist parties. They also chose to actively select biased journalists as moderators and commentators which influenced the debate. They also chose to silence the right moderate, conservative and nationalist parties many times during the debate which caused arguments between party leaders and moderator.